The Fears of Henry IV: The Life of England's Self-Made King

A great read - well written and a page- turner - in true Ian Mortimer style. I found the story of Henry IV’s life and the insights into his personality fascinating. I’d definitely recommend.

Good read, well written with some thought provoking analysis, I wonder if the author is a Mortimer of the Royal line? If so he should be commended even further for his lack of bias. Thoroughly enjoyed the journey, thank you.

The author has written a number of books, including the life of Roger Mortimer, and a biography of Edward III. This book tackles the life of King Henry IV, born to John of Gaunt, fourth son of Edward III and Duke of Lancaster, and his wife Blanche, heiress to the considerable Lancaster estates. Henry Bolingbroke was born in 1367 to an England which had known the strong rule of King Edward III, who died in1377, and sadly was predeceased by his oldest son, Edward the Black Prince. On the death of Edward III the throne of England was the birthright of the Black Prince’s eldest surviving son, also born in 1367, who became King Richard II. It is probably well known that Henry deposed Richard in 1399. How, why, and what the events were that led to that usurpation and the ascension of Henry as King Henry IV make up the first two hundred pages of this book. By these events, England was changed forever. Nobody had ever done what Henry had done, so the consequences were incalculable – for him, for his family, and for the people of England. The rest of the book follows the events of the reign of Henry, both the successes and the failures. But throughout, the book offers the reader a very ‘human’ view of Henry of Lancaster. To a large extent, he seems to have been a very private man; certainly a very religious man, and one who took his life, and his responsibilities very seriously indeed. He strove to be what his country needed, but whether he felt, at the end of his life that he had succeeded, is open to interpretation. Certainly he has had a black reputation in the centuries since his death, but the author has done an admirable job in offering to the reader the life and times of a man who was of his times, and neither black nor spotless in his deeds. Why Henry succeeded where Richard failed is of course a question asked throughout the book, and it is interesting to see the shifts in the personalities and characters of the two men; Richard, stiff-necked and unable to change; and Henry, pragmatic and able to “bend and sway in the storm”. A hugely interesting and informative book, and one which offers the reader a very sound view of a most interesting King, this book is highly recommended. It is a dense and scholarly read, but well worth the time invested in the read.

Alongside Ian Mortimer's biography of Edward III, I can't recommend his Fears of Henry IV enough. Ian's narration and prose is a delight to read - grounded, researched and academic, yet compassionate and empathetic. They provide a composed, entertaining, and rounded reveal of a personable, living, breathing human being - a conversation surrounding the myths and the events which shaped Henry IV's reign. It is often a hyperbolic statement to suggest a biographer's subject leaps off the page, but in this case, I'm not over-stating. Ian describes a flesh and blood man; driven by his upbringing, the environment and circumstance to seize the throne. Yes, Ian is certainly partisan in his appraisal of Henry - ultimately drawing our attention to the fact England considered him a saviour rather than a usurper. But his interpretation is justified and well-founded, and at no point feels hollow or undeserved. I learned so much about Henry IV while reading the book. (I knew next to nothing prior), and his untimely end had me feeling more than a little saddened he didn't have the opportunity to live longer. It's easy to consider the larger punctuations in our history as having the bigger impact - the Norman Conquest, Henry VIII's break from Rome, the Civil War and the Union of the Crowns to name a few. But so much of the history of our country could have been different if Henry IV had not fallen ill and died when he did. And although Ian doesn't discuss these what if's directly, the invitation to consider them is a natural by-product of one's imagination after finishing the book. Thank you, Ian. Absolutely superb.

Very interesting to read about earl henry and king Richard 2 relationship and how Richard hated Henry for henry was a great chilvarec knight and Richard was an insecure king.

Book in good condition, arrived on time and is a good read.

I do love Shakespeare’s Henry IV parts one and two but I had always wanted to get around to reading a decent history of the period to see which elements, if any, of the play were anything close to the actual events. The answer it seems from reading this is - much more than I had thought would be the case. One significant difference however is the character and motivation of the then future Henry V. He doesn’t come out of this history at all well. When reading this book one has to be aware at all times that it’s a biography of Henry IV and the author is clearly very taken with his subject matter. However the arguments are well made with a wealth of research and detail and Henry IV doesn’t get eulogised on every page. Indeed there are several very critical assessments of his prowess as a military tactician (though not his valour and ability as an individual warrior in battle or in the joust). So, as I said, biased but convincingly well researched and argued and a must read for anyone interested in this king, or even this time period in Europe. It also comprehensively answered my original question.

Ian Mortimer tells the tale of a tragic prince who lead an incredible life but has been unappreciated throughout history. Some of the lack of appreciation is understandable because his warrior son had left such an incredible legacy that his own suffers from want. The rest of it is due to an unsuccessful reign and the judgments of his time period. It is a great book filled with excitement but told with historical professionalism. Henry is born the son of the Duke of Lancaster, John of Gaunt, his paternal grandfather is King, and his maternal grandfather was the great warrior, Duke Henry. Throughout his life Henry would try to live the life a prince was expected to. He was a knight, he jousted, he went crusade where he fought holy battles, and he had even traveled to the Holy Land setting foot in Jerusalem. Henry had the potential to be great asset for to his cousin, the King. Unfortunately, for both Henry and his country, they had King Richard II as their monarch. Many monarchs that have been overthrown were not themselves, bad people. More often than not they were just incapable of doing their jobs and suffered the consequences of it*. Richard, however, was a pure tyrant king who created a climate of fear for his people. King Richard who had come to the throne at the age of ten was often insecure, jealous, and paranoid. He always seemed to make enemies where he could have friends. The King never understood that the rebels in the peasant revolt were actually pro-monarchist, against noble power as much as he. He did not understand his uncle, the Duke of Lancaster, was actually trying to help him. Even his mother tried to get him to see reason but King Richard II really believed that his uncle was out to get him, even though he never acted against him. Through no fault of his own Henry finds himself banished from England forced into exile, unable to attend his own father's funeral, and is disinherited. Much like Julius Caesar, Henry finds himself forced into an impossible position and acts in a similar manner. He returns to England in head of an army that grows the further he gets into the country (showing clear dislike for the people to Richard) and easily captures his rival. Henry quickly encounters a problem. He had promised not to take England by conquest only to fight against a perceived injustice. In later ages it would be accepted that rulers who are tyrants can be overthrown, but what Henry was going to do to Richard violated all morals of the day. He took the throne from his cousin and through Parliament had himself proclaimed King Henry IV. The revolutionary act of disposing of a king and taking his place would condemn Henry to a difficult rule. When King Edward II (great-grandfather to both Henry and Richard) was overthrown he was replaced by his own lawful heir, King Edward III, who did not partake in his father's overthrow. Edward III would avenge his father by killing the man who deposed him, Roger Mortimer, the Earl of March. This allowed King Edward III to rule with legitimacy. Henry was the man who deposed King Richard and replaced him as king. Henry was not Richard's lawful heir as had been Edward III to Edward II; there were multiple people who had better claims than Henry regardless of which method of succession was used**. Yet Henry deposes a king and becomes one at the same time, under the justification that Richard was a bad king. This makes the new King Henry IV vulnerable because the same standard could be used on him! In addition, as W. L. Warren pointed out in his book on King Henry II often times powerful nobles who become king, such as King Stephan, have a difficult time making the transition from nobleman to king. Henry learned the hard way that running a kingdom was not the same as running a duchy. It has often been said that great leaders are judged by the circumstances that they faced. This is not true for King Henry IV, although he saved the kingdom from a tyrant and handled all crises that came to him rather well. His legacy was tarnished by what he had to do to become king. During his life he went unrecognized by his peers the Kings of Scotland and France. After death, he would unappreciated by his own successors, even his own son. He was Henry the Usurper and no king could glorify a usurper and remain safe on his own throne. Unlike his ancestor, William the Conqueror, he was never able to pull a show of legitimacy that the public could at some level accept. Ian Mortimer did a great job telling the tale of a tragic figure not even the great William Shakespeare was able to give justice. I would highly recommend this book to anyone it is a great read. *Henry's own grandson, King Henry VI, is a good example. Others were King Louis XVI of France, and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. **As Mortimer points out there were many entails but none of them could be used to create a successful argument that Henry had a hereditary right to be king.

Still wading through it.

Difficile de trouver une biographie sur ce roi anglais de la fin du XIVème siècle, un roi qui a pourtant fait l'objet de l'une des pièces historiques de Shakespeare mais de façon orientée et parcellaire. Henry IV, qui a fait déposer Richard II, est moins connu que son cousin royal ou que son fils Henry V, le héros de la bataille d'Azincourt ! Un ouvrage très intéressant et aisé à lire (même en anglais !)

Wonderful research. Didn't know much about Henry IV. I also got a better handle on the eventual Wars of the Roses.

Jan Mortimer writes an erudite history of King Henry IX of England. He gives good explanations of medieval customs and helps us understand why Henry did what he did. His depictions help you to visualize events as they happen. The book was long because of all the references included in it but once you are into the meat of the story of Henry's life, it is very interesting.